THE partisanship thread

[treee]

This thread is for discussing the prevalence of partisanship in politics and how it is used to manipulate your average citizen of the United States.

[Belsnickel]

Partisan polarization is increasing right now in our political arena, of course it is being used to manipulate voters. There is zero doubt about that.

[treee]

(12-16-2016, 12:05 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Partisan polarization is increasing right now in our political arena, of course it is being used to manipulate voters. There is zero doubt about that.

As a liberal who sympathizes with economic conservatism, I have to agree. Things I'm concerned about include: net neutrality, attacks upon social security, the privatization of facets of our government that should remain public. What do you think about that in general?

[Belsnickel]

(12-16-2016, 12:22 AM)treee Wrote: As a liberal who sympathizes with economic conservatism, I have to agree. Things I'm concerned about include: net neutrality, attacks upon social security, the privatization of facets of our government that should remain public. What do you think about that in general?

I startee to type a response, but it got too involved for my phone. I will have to respond when I am on an actual computer next.

[treee]

(12-16-2016, 12:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I startee to type a response, but it got too involved for my phone. I will have to respond when I am on an actual computer next.

Fair enough. Hopefully this thread can avoid some of the partisanship (from both sides) that our board is prone to.

[Belsnickel]

(12-16-2016, 12:22 AM)treee Wrote: As a liberal who sympathizes with economic conservatism, I have to agree. Things I'm concerned about include: net neutrality, attacks upon social security, the privatization of facets of our government that should remain public. What do you think about that in general?

For the three topics you specifically mention, I have differing opinions on. For net neutrality I am not at all surprised it has become a partisan issue. I am concerned about it, but likely not for the same reasons some people are. In truth, my knowledge of the issue, and telecommunications in general, is lacking so I don't wade into those debates too often because of it. My basic viewpoint of it is that as of right now, internet is not a public good and so as of right now there is less of an argument to mandate net neutrality. The debate should be (and maybe it is, I'm just not paying enough attention to it) whether or not internet should be a public good. Then that becomes a whole other ball game.

The attacks upon Social Security are interesting. I have, myself, discussed my issues with it in the past. I am in favor of a public social security system, but what that needs to look like is not something I know. I've made it no secret that I am more of a fan of some of the European models of social programs, but making that work here would likely be very problematic. I'm in favor of keeping the system, we just need to rethink it ans improve its longevity making it more viable for the future.

The last one is the one where I tend to get more into the issue. I focus on a couple of policy issues, but primarily I am just a generalist bureaucrat. I understand finances and administration. A lot of people have misconceptions about government efficiency. I'm not going to lie and say there aren't areas that can be improved, but in a lot of areas the government does things in a more efficient manner than the private sector could or would. Not to mention if we are talking about something that is a public good, we don't want to privatize that. When you privatize administration of public goods it often results in rights/liberties being infringed upon.

I think a lot of problems with these issues and the public opinion regarding them is that even though we have access to so much information today, but people are lazy and don't search for it. They instead ingest information passively and that is often partial, or just plain wrong, information. Because of this people think they have informed opinions about things, but in reality they have a very misinformed opinion.

[Dill]

(12-15-2016, 11:40 PM)treee Wrote: This thread is for discussing the prevalence of partisanship in politics and how it is used to manipulate your average citizen of the United States.

Then I note the following:

1. After Washington, politics has always been partisan and candidates and parties have sought to "manipulate" average citizens.

2. What is new is the role that telecommunications media, and the deregulation thereof, play in conjunction with parties now, allowing segments of the electorate to develop their own distinct and unvetted record of historical and political facts which circulate unchallenged within what we now call "bubbles." I think there are other influential factors as well: people don't read as much as they used to, civic education is not as strong as it once was.

3. Especially troubling now is how media entities like Fox have come out as open partisans for one party and convinced large segments of the electorate that something called "the liberal press" is equally partisan or more so for the other side. Now we see millions of Americans judging the truth of news reports by their source rather than subjecting each one to traditional non-partisan, criteria of evaluation.  Because large segments of the electorate do not share the factual record anymore, it is easy for double standards appear normal, or not double at all.

This is no longer a one off problem unique to one election or candidate, but a problem which now continues from election to election.

4. The Fox Effect did not come out of nowhere. The groundwork was laid by government lying during the Vietnam war, Watergate, and Iran Contra, which undermined the authority of the US government, and by the civil rights movement and 60s counter culture (though both have now been partly integrated into US conservatism). This erosion of trust in government has greatly helped small-government conservatives (classical liberals) to delegitimize the notion of a "public good" supported by tax dollars in the interest of all. That government can do anything better than the private sector becomes subject of dispute. People elect representatives who don't think government works, and so it often doesn't, fueling the cycle of distrust while obscuring its causes. This is fertile ground for any news organization which makes distrust of public institutions profitable, an expanding market share.

5. The "liberal" press is itself part of the problem, so far as it embraces an uncritical notion of "balance"--presenting "both sides" of an issue as if each were as factually grounded and well argued as the other whether they are, in fact, or not.  One cause of this may be fear of appearing partisan, as the side with the most to lose from demands for logical consistency and fact-checking insists that journalists (on the other side) "stay out of it" and "just report!"

[*michaelsean*]

I blame Democrats.

[Benton]

(12-16-2016, 11:46 AM)Dill Wrote: Then I note the following:

1. After Washington, politics has always been partisan and candidates and parties have sought to "manipulate" average citizens.

2. What is new is the role that telecommunications media, and the deregulation thereof, play in conjunction with parties now, allowing segments of the electorate to develop their own distinct and unvetted record of historical and political facts which circulate unchallenged within what we now call "bubbles." I think there are other influential factors as well: people don't read as much as they used to, civic education is not as strong as it once was.

3. Especially troubling now is how media entities like Fox have come out as open partisans for one party and convinced large segments of the electorate that something called "the liberal press" is equally partisan or more so for the other side. Now we see millions of Americans judging the truth of news reports by their source rather than subjecting each one to traditional non-partisan, criteria of evaluation.  Because large segments of the electorate do not share the factual record anymore, it is easy for double standards appear normal, or not double at all.

This is no longer a one off problem unique to one election or candidate, but a problem which now continues from election to election.

4. The Fox Effect did not come out of nowhere. The groundwork was laid by government lying during the Vietnam war, Watergate, and Iran Contra, which undermined the authority of the US government, and by the civil rights movement and 60s counter culture (though both have now been partly integrated into US conservatism).  This erosion of trust in government has greatly helped small-government conservatives (classical liberals) to delegitimize the notion of a "public good" supported by tax dollars in the interest of all. That government can do anything better than the private sector becomes subject of dispute. People elect representatives who don't think government works, and so it often doesn't, fueling the cycle of distrust while obscuring its causes. This is fertile ground for any news organization which makes distrust of public institutions profitable, an expanding market share.

5. The "liberal" press is itself part of the problem, so far as it embraces an uncritical notion of "balance"--presenting "both sides" of an issue as if each were as factually grounded and well argued as the other whether they are, in fact, or not.  One cause of this may be fear of appearing partisan, as the side with the most to lose from demands for logical consistency and fact-checking insists that journalists (on the other side) "stay out of it" and "just report!"

some of this I think is a holdover from the fairness doctrine and the equal time rule. Not so much in the candidate, but in trying to alot time to each side of an issue.

[JustWinBaby]

When partisans start holding the party they "root for" equally accountable, then things may start to change. It's been interesting to watch the last 8-10-12 years how basically the same issue causes outrage and paradoxically obsessive, dogmatic defense from the same people based on whether they root for the guy in office.

Otherwise no one in Washington gives a shit about what people who will never vote for them think.